MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4398244260 · doi:10.1016/j.xops.2024.100556

Interpretation of Clinical Retinal Images Using an Artificial Intelligence Chatbot

2024· article· en· W4398244260 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueOphthalmology Science · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook Health Science CentreSt. Michael's HospitalUniversity of Toronto
FundersPhysicians' Services Incorporated FoundationApellis Pharmaceuticals
KeywordsChatbotInterpretation (philosophy)Artificial intelligenceNatural language processingComputer scienceRetinalPsychologyCognitive scienceMedicineOphthalmologyProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PurposeTo assess the performance of ChatGPT-4 in providing accurate diagnoses to retina teaching cases from OCTCases.DesignCross-sectional study.SubjectsRetina teaching cases from OCTCases.MethodsWe prompted a custom chatbot with 69 retina cases containing multimodal ophthalmic images, asking it to provide the most likely diagnosis. In a sensitivity analysis, we inputted increasing amounts of clinical information pertaining to each case until the chatbot achieved a correct diagnosis. We performed multivariable logistic regressions on Stata v17.0 (StataCorp LLC, College Station, Texas) to investigate associations between the amount of text-based information inputted per prompt and the odds of the chatbot achieving a correct diagnosis, adjusting for the laterality of cases, number of ophthalmic images inputted, and imaging modalities.Main Outcome MeasuresOur primary outcome was the proportion of cases for which the chatbot was able to provide a correct diagnosis. Our secondary outcome was the chatbot’s performance in relation to the amount of text-based information accompanying ophthalmic images.ResultsAcross 69 retina cases collectively containing 139 ophthalmic images, the chatbot was able to provide a definitive, correct diagnosis for 35 (50.7%) cases. The chatbot needed variable amounts of clinical information to achieve a correct diagnosis, where the entire patient description as presented by OCTCases was required for a majority of correctly diagnosed cases (23/35 cases, 65.7%). Relative to when the chatbot was only prompted with a patient’s age and sex, the chatbot achieved a higher odds of a correct diagnosis when prompted with an entire patient description (OR=10.1, 95%CI=[3.3, 30.3], p<0.01). Despite providing an incorrect diagnosis for 34 (49.3%) cases, the chatbot listed the correct diagnosis within its differential diagnosis for 7 (20.6%) of these incorrectly answered cases.ConclusionsThis custom chatbot was able to accurately diagnose approximately half of the retina cases requiring multimodal input, albeit relying heavily on text-based contextual information that accompanied ophthalmic images. The diagnostic ability of the chatbot in interpretation of multimodal imaging without text-based information is currently limited. The appropriate use of the chatbot in this setting is of utmost importance, given bioethical concerns.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.780
Threshold uncertainty score0.580

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.424
GPT teacher head0.576
Teacher spread0.152 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it